AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bhate, J.—The contempt case arises against the respondents in the following manner:
The 1st petitioner is a firm and the lands of the said firm situated in Thimmapur village, Itakyal Mandal, Alampur taluq, Mahabubnagar district were acquired in pursuance of a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued in the month of March 1995 by dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A by invoking the provisions u/s 17(4) of the said Act and advance possession was taken on 15-4-1995. The petitioners had questioned the said acquisition by filing W.P.No. 24972 of 1996. During the pendency of the said writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 30740 of 1996 was preferred by the petitioners requesting the Court to give a direction regarding payment of compensation to the petitioners as required by the provisions of the said Act. The Court ordered the said W.P.M.P. directing the respondents to tender the payment of 80% of the estimated amount of the land within three months. The direction was to the 1st respondent herein, to deposit the said estimated amount with the Land Acquisition Officer, who is the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition. As the said interim direction was not complied with, the present contempt case was filed. The contempt case was filed on 7-10-1996. As indicated already, the direction was to be fulfilled on or before 26-7-1996.
Though initially the contempt proceedings were sought to be initiated against all the three respondents in the writ petition, later on, except against the present contemnor (the 1st respondent), the proceedings against others were dropped as it was found that they were not in any way concerned.
The present contemnor appeared on 31-10-1996 and filed an affidavit admitting that he was directed to comply with the order dated 26-4-1996 within three months. However, the contemnor stated that on receipt of the orders, action has been initiated in consultation with the Collector, Mahaboobnagar. The said Collector by letter dated 26-6-1996 had requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh to sanction the amount of Rs. 80.00 lakhs. It was pointed out further that the Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar had already deposited Rs. 13.00 lakhs as advance towards compensation. Further, it was stated that provisionally it was decided to sanction a further amount of Rs. 67.00 lakhs subject to corrections, if any. It was stated that since the amount exceeded Rs. 50,00,000/-, the proposal was being placed before the Council of Ministers, for approval and that as soon as the said proposal was approved by the Council of Ministers, the amount will be sanctioned. It was, therefore, contended that as necessary steps have been taken, there was no wilful non-compliance on the part of the contemnor. Hence, the contempt case was not well made out.
On 21-11-1996, the present contemnor filed an additional counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, a stand was taken stating that the connected file was sent to Finance Department on 23-9-1996 and the same was cleared on 11-10-1996 subject to the approval of the Cabinet. The Home Department received the file on 14-10-1996 and note for circulation to Chief Minister through Chief Secretary and Minister for Home was put up on 22-10-1996. It was received by them on 5-11-1996 with the approval of the Chief Minister for placing the matter before the Cabinet. The Cabinet was to meet on 15-11-1996, but the meeting was postponed to the next day and again to 22-11-1996 due to certain reasons. The contemnor, therefore, stated that he had done whatever was within his power to comply with the order and there was no violation or disrespect to the Court''s order. However, it was reiterated that as soon as the Cabinet approved the proposal, payment would be made to the claimants without any delay.
On 29-11-1996, a further additional counter-affidavit was filed wherein it was urged that the proposal for release of 67.00 lakhs in connection with the payment to the petitioners was included in the agenda for consideration by the Council of Ministers at its meeting on 22-11-1996. (The amount now proposed to be released was in addition to the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs already deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer.) However, this item could not be considered by the Council of Ministers on 22-11-1996 for want of time, and the matter was posted to the next meeting. The resolution of the Council of Ministers was received on 27-11-1996 and immediately the connected file was submitted to the Chief Minister for release of the amount. Lastly, it was stated that "payment will be made to the claimants as soon as the Government approves the proposal".
Strangely enough, on 10-4-1997, another additional counter-affidavit was filed which was allegedly sworn in on 9-11 -1996. This date is important because it will show that this affidavit was sworn in much before the affidavit which was presented on 21-11-1996 which has been referred to above. In this affidavit, a completely different stand has been taken. The contemnor says that after holding consultations with the land-owners, the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar informed the Government on 24-1-1997 that there was no possibility of passing consent award. The Collector, Mahaboobnagar, after re-examining the land value, solatium etc., had furnished revised estimates of the compensation payable to the land-owners as Rs. 86.98 lakhs and requested to release an amount of Rs. 67.00 lakhs after deducting the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs deposited already with the Land Acquisition Officer. The affidavit further states that when steps were taken for releasing the said amount, the State Government on 1-2-1997 considered the proposal and directed the Commissioner of Land Revenue to inspect the land and indicate the correct rate for the lands in question. I fail to understand as to how this revision could have been directed once the matter was completed already. Be that as it may, the Commissioner of Land Revenue then made a report observing that the land value was only Rs. 10,000/- per acre and, therefore, the amount of total compensation would be only Rs. 18.67 lakhs including the value of structures on the lands, solatium and additional market value. Taking this stand, the contemnor says in the affidavit, that the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs which was already deposited with the L.A.O. is much more than the total amount which is worked out on the basis of the Commissioner''s report for being paid as compensation. He, therefore, submitted that deposit was already made towards compensation and there was nothing for compliance remaining thereof. He, therefore, submits that there is no disobedience of the Court''s order and the contempt proceedings may be dropped.
From the various affidavits referred to above and filed by the contemnor from time to time, it will be clear that the contemnor was taking different stands at different points of time. The earlier affidavits clearly stated that payment would be made in accordance with the directions of the Court and suddenly, an affidavit was filed on 10-4-1997 stating that nothing was required to be paid in view of the deposit made long before. As pointed out, this affidavit is carelessly drawn. Though it was filed on 10-4-1997 and it refers to the events of January 1997, the same was sworn on 9-11-1996, meaning thereby, that there was patent carelessness showing total disregard to the sanctity towards Court in filing the said affidavit. The contemnor had undertaken by the earlier affidavits to comply with the orders. That apart, there is a clear direction of the Court in its original order to comply with the orders within three months from the date of passing of the same. The contemnor was expected to comply with the orders or in case there was any genuine, honest impediment in complying with the order in the stipulated time, it was for the contemnor to move the Court for getting the time extended for its compliance. The contemnor showed total disregard and thus wilfully violated the Court''s order and tried to white-wash the whole matter, by filing different affidavits as indicated above, only after the contempt case was filed against him. The contention that the contemnor has done every thing that was within his power to comply with the order is unjustifiable in view of the complete carelessness from the very beginning when the orders were passed by this Court till the last affidavit was filled by him. It may be that the contemnor was required to take sanction from the Cabinet. But, that did not absolve him of the duty from taking such sanction before the time stipulated for compliance of the order expired. In these circumstances, I am of the confirmed view that the contemnor has shown total lack of decorum and has been wilfully disobedient of the Court''s order requiring the contemnor to comply with the said order within the said time by taking all the steps which were necessary for complying with the same. The contradictory stand taken by him in his subsequent affidavits, instead of exonerating him, has compounded the matter further. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the contemnor says that the contemnor may be exonerated because it was beyond him (sic. his power) to comply with the order unless the Cabinet approved the payment of the amount as directed by the Court. In view of the facts stated above, the contemnor had not done what he was required to do within the stipulated time nor did he seek extension of time for complying the Court''s order. This could not have been but wilful. The contemnor in the circumstances is found guilty for the alleged contempt against him for the non-compliance of the order dated 26-4-1996 in W.P.M.P.No. 30740 of 1996 in W.P.No. 24972 of 1996, passed by this Court.
The petitioner has also been given notice of 2nd contempt for having disobeyed the Court''s order of not attending the Court in spite of directions given by this Court for his appearance. There is no dispute that the Court had directed the contemnor to appear personally in the Court on 22-4-1997. This direction was given after hearing the parties on 10-4-1997. However, the contemnor did not appear on 22-4-1997 as directed. On the other hand, he filed a petition stating that his presence may be dispensed with. This was on the ground that he was sanctioned leave by the Government by G.O.Rt.No. 1616 dated 2-4-1997 for the period from 23-4-1997 to 20-5-1997. Under the said G.O., he was permitted to leave the headquarters on the afternoon of 22-4-1997. He states that much earlier to 10-4-1997, as this leave was sanctioned, he left for the U.S.A. to settle some urgent educational and visa problems of his two sons, who were studying there. He left Hyderabad in the forenoon of 21-4-1997 and hence could not attend the Court on 22-4-1997. His prayer for dispensing with his presence was not granted by the Court and yet, he remained absent on 22-4-1997 in the Court. The contemnor was directed to remain present on the next date which was fixed by this Court. The next date fixed was 13-6-1997 and the direction was conveyed through the learned Advocate-General who is representing the contemnor. On 13-6-1997 also, the contemnor did not appear and again, an affidavit was filed by the Assistant Secretary to Government, Home Department for dispensing with his presence on the ground that the contemnor had not returned. It was thereafter that a notice of contempt was issued against the contemnor for disobedience of the Court''s order for appearing on the two given dates. In answer to this notice, the contemnor''s reply by his affidavit dated 25-6-1997 is only to the effect that he was required to go because of the orders of leave obtained by him and in order to look after the urgent problems of his sons in U.S.A. He contended that he was unable to contact any of the Officials of the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh after the matter was adjourned by the Court on 22-4-1997 to 13-6-1997 for his appearance again and, therefore, he was unaware that the matter was posted to 13-6-1997. It is contended that there was no wilful disobedience on his part in remaining absent either on 22-4-1997 or on 13-6-1997. The contemnor stated in the last but one paragraph of the affidavit that in spite of his best intentions and respect to the Court, he could not appear on the dates mentioned and for the resultant inconvenience caused to the Court, he seeks to tender an unconditional apology for his non-appearance.
In spite of all the sympathy which deserves to be given in such cases, I am of the view that the contemnor has shown very scant regard for the order of the Court to appear before it on the even (sic. given) dates. When he knew that the Court has directed him to appear before the Court on 22-4-1997, it does not lie in his mouth to say that because the Government had sanctioned him leave on 2-4-1997, he thought it unnecessary to appear before the Court on 22-4-1997. Taking a most lenient view in the matter, it will be found that even the CO., which is placed before me, shows that the contemnor was permitted to leave the headquarters only on 22-4-1997 a.n., but as has been stated by him in the affidavit, he left Hyderabad on 21-4-1997. It was via Madras and Bangalore to U.S.A. I may point that the Government Order granting leave is no defence for disobedience of the Court order for attending on 22-4-1997. That apart, the shield which he is trying to use is also of no help because the Government had not permitted him to leave the headquarters till the afternoon of 22-4-1997 and he was bound to remain in Hyderabad on 22-4-1997 under the Government Order. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the Government Order is really no shield to the contemnor to say that on strength of it he left and could ignore the Court''s Order because the Government permitted him to do so.
As far as the non-appearance on 12-6-1997 and 13-6-1997 is concerned, the case is still worse. The contemnor was absent on 22-4-1997 and it was indicated then that his leave was upto 20-5-1997. The contemnor says that he was granted further leave from 20-5-1997 till 4-6-1997 and later on, by a 3rd order on 5-6-1997, his leave was further extended. This is what is stated now at the time of arguments. Granting of leave by the Government to the contemnor can hardly be a justification for his audacity to disobey the Court''s Order of attending the Court on given dates. Further, the circumstances in the case clearly shows that the contemnor was throughout keeping contact with the authorities in Hyderabad. That is how he got his leave extended. Furthermore, the contemnor''s contention that he had no contact with the authorities in Hyderabad is so blatantly false that his own conduct is sufficient to show this. As already pointed out, he got his leave extended while in U.S.A. He filed an affidavit on his behalf through the Assistant Secretary to Government on 12-6-1997 stating that the contemnor was not in a position to attend and his presence may be dispensed. This itself showed that the contemnor was giving instructions from the U.S.A. His contention that he was not aware that the Court has directed him to appear on 12-6-1997 is thus falsified by his own conduct. Having regard to all these circumstances, there is absolutely not the slightest doubt that the contemnor showed very scant regard to the directions given by the Court, though they were given through no less'' a person than the Advocate-General who is representing him. The learned Advocate-General says that the contemnor is genuinely penitent for whatever has happened and has tendered his unconditional apology.
In the normal circumstances, unconditional apology would have been sufficient amends for whatever contempt was committed. But, the apology should have been real act of contrition. In the present case, it appears to me that the apology has been used as the last weapon after trying to set up a totally untenable defence to the contempt committed by the contemnor. The contemnor had tried to justify his disobedience by pretending that the Government had sanctioned leave to him and it was permissible for him to abstain from attending the Court. Whatever may be the reason for his visit to U.S.A., it does not justify his wilful disobedience of the Court''s Order. The best that could have been expected from such a high officer who is getting advice from such high dignitaries was to obtain Court''s permission before leaving the Country. It was only when the Court gave him permission that he could have thought of absenting himself on the date which was fixed for his appearance before the Court. It is apparent that he took all the things for granted. In fact, he has got even the orders of extension of his leave ex post facto showing that he was under the impression that Court''s Orders can be sought for by merely making subsequent representations. In this back-ground, the apology which is tendered by him though said to be unconditional, appears to be ruse rather than a genuine conduct of penitence. I am not in a position to accept this apology as a genuine apology. The circumstances in the case clearly show that the contemnor was showing very little respect for the Court''s Orders. All this was wilful goes without saying. In the circumstances, I find the present contemnor guilty of having committed contempt on this count also.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I think that the present contemnor deserves to be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer one month''s civil imprisonment on each count. The present contemnor is accordingly directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count of contempt and in default, he should undergo one month''s civil imprisonment on each count. The fine maybe deposited within seven days from today. The contempt case is accordingly disposed of.